I haven’t seen any mention of it in the Canadian media, but here in the UK (where I am now based) the media have picked up on a study out of Sweden that found a link between gender equality and health - mainly that couples who have an equal partnership (ie tend to earn the same income and share household chores) are more likely to suffer poor health and disability. And the media’s spin on the study is both laughable and sickening.

Take this article from The Daily Mail - written by a woman, no less (I’m sure the editors wanted to make the piece more palatable to the public) - entitled, “Why feminism ‘could be bad for your health’”:

“For years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it is the key to a better society. Now researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health. A study in Sweden, arguably one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, discovered that men and women who are equal are more likely to suffer illness or disability. Those who earn the same are also more likely to become unwell or suffer a disability.”

Man. Can you smell that? It smells like bullshit.

What we have here ladies is a classic case of correlation, not causation. It is probably statistically true that couples in equal income households have higher rates of illness and disability. The reason is simple: people with higher paying jobs - like educated, self-sufficient, self-respecting feminists - tend to work harder, sleep less and have higher levels of stress and anxiety - all bad for your health. This is a pretty simple relationship to understand - but sometimes folks at the printer’s press just can’t help themselves from vilifying feminists.

This certainly isn’t the first time feminism has been wrongfully convicted for a crime it did not commit. Feminism has also been cited as a cause of breast cancer, because ‘feminists’ (I’m using the term loosely to refer to working women of all stripes) have higher rates of breast cancer than traditional stay-at-home moms. Again, the reason is simple: working women choose to delay having children until they are older, which is known to increase your risk of developing breast cancer (conversely, having children younger lowers it - it’s purely biological). Similarly, anti-abortion activists often claim that abortions cause breast cancer. Again, it’s a case of correlation, not causation - women who choose to have abortions and delay (or abstain from) having kids have higher rates of breast cancer. Abortions don’t cause breast cancer and neither does feminism.

So be wary of people who misconstrue the meaning of science and statistics to further their agendas, ladies. The world is rife with bullshit, and you have to keep your eyes peeled - lest you step right in it.

For a fantastic piece that describes how the media reported on this Swedish study, and which outlines some of the outrageous attacks on feminism in the last fifty years, check out this piece in The Guardian by British writer Zoe Williams. I highly recommend you read it - she’s funny and no-nonsense (just what I like in a feminist). Here’s an excerpt I find particularly funny:

“So, there you have it. Feminism causes cancer. According to American journalist, Naomi Schaefer Riley, it also makes you more likely to be raped and murdered because feminists go out in the evenings and drink more than we should. (And, laughably, we think that whatever we wear and wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no. Idiots.)” Brava!

via feministing

…for more information on the always fantastic guerrilla girls, click here.

In more proof that Canada is not the oasis of tolerance that we sometimes like to think it is: the chief officer of elections in Quebec has said that Muslim women who were the niqab must lift their veils to vote: see here.

Does anybody see the sickening irony in the fact that this means some Muslim women may actually lose the vote? Whoops, I thought it was Canada in 2007, not Canada in 1947.

This is one of those topics that really gets my goat!! And this is not the first example of this in Quebec - it follows the recent barring of an Ontario girl in a soccer tournament for her hijab, and the firing of a corrections officer for the same reason. In both situations it was suggested that the hijab was dangerous. At the soccer game, it was suggested that a player could strangle herself with her hijab (Death by hijab? I don’t think so).

(more inside…)

If you’re unlucky, you remember Rosie O’Donnell’s horrifying impersonation of a Chinese newscaster last December. She said “Ching chong ching chong!” and some other rubbish, and the audience laughed it up. (Incidentally, some of my first and strongest memories of elementary school involve other kids saying “ching chong ching chong” to me. So essentially Rosie O’Donnell has the same level of sensitivity as the playground 6 year-olds who felt it necessary to point out how I was different).

(Seriously, read on past the “more” prompt below. There’s another youtube video following that is FANTASTIC.)

(more inside…)

The CBC Radio 1 program And Sometimes Y is airing a story tomorrow (Saturday @ 11:30am) on: “Do men use language differently from women? We find out what makes speech or writing masculine or feminine.” Apparently the show first ran last August, but if you missed it, it sounds like it may be worth tuning in this time.

And the week following (Saturday, March 31st @ 11:30am) will be on: “how to talk in ‘gender-neutral’ language, and why people try to do this.”

(Yeah, that’s a real headscratcher. Why would people try to do that? Why, why, why… hmmm… )

The guest list looks like it may bear munchable linguistic fruits. It includes:
* Norah Vincent, the author of Self-Made Man;
* Nicole Brossard, “who explains the word phallogocentrism“; and
* Josey Vogels, the author of The Secret Language of Girls (though I wouldn’t say the description of this book makes me want to run to my local bookstore)

There are a couple of audio clip teasers available on the CBC website here. Norah’s clip about women bankrupting their breath is especially interesting.

I don’t know whether this will be one of those moments when CBC shines, or if it will be a pallid ‘meh‘ sort of show. Worth a listen to find out I’d wager. (Come on CBC, bring home that progressive Canadian bacon…)

I’m going to be afr (away from radio) at 11:30, so I’ll rely on you to let me know if it warrants thumbs up or down.

I got this announcement from a Ladyfester:

“Ladyfest Toronto is looking for a creative, outgoing, web designer to create our website. The web designer will develop the website and provide the creative direction.

This is a terrific opportunity for anyone who is looking to build their portfolio as well as gain some valuable experience.

We are going to be providing a festival pass, and paying an honorarium for the web design, but please keep in mind that we are a grass-roots, arts collective that have limited funding and strongly rely on fundraising initiatives.

If you are interested please email us at ladyfesttoronto@gmail.com
Closing date for submission is April 1, 2007.”

The University of Ottawa is offering a $40,000 grant (or less) to a group of young women, to enable them to run a 3-day workshop on which direction feminism should take. $40,000? Vavavoom!

(more inside…)

Since we’ve been on the topic of Hillary Clinton and how the American media will tear her and her personal life to shreds should she run for president, I thought I’d share an interesting article on the preparations being made to make fun of her if she should make it to office.

Now, lampooning the president has long been an entertaining tradition that I myself have long enjoyed, so mocking should be equal opportunity, right?

Wrong. Alas, the very idea is proving to be a challenge: “It’s difficult to make fun of a woman without it coming off as anti-woman,” said comedian Doug Hecox, who has a comedy blog, dougfun.com. Seems that among some comedians making fun of women is “sexist” but making fun of men is par the course? It’s a whole new realm of equality if you ask me.

While you ponder this question, please enjoy Will Farrell doing his version of Dubya: “So stick with Bushy..”

I promise this wasn’t just an excuse to get my beloved Will Farrell on the Shameless Blog.

Has anybody who lives in Toronto seen those billboard ads for Bleuforet tights? I scoured the internet for pictures of them, but they’re nowhere to be found, so I’ll just have to describe them. There’s a series of ads, and in each a sweet young thing in brightly coloured tights and a white sweater bounces in mid-air above a bed. Pretty run of the mill, except that the sweet young things are wearing transparent sweaters.

The first time I saw one of these ads, I actually got off my bike to stare at the ad to make sure that what I was seeing was truly, ahem, nipple, and not just a dirt smudge or my imagination.

The thing is, I just can’t figure out what to think of these ads. I could just say it’s another case of plain old conventionally beautiful women being used to sell products, in a way that 1) dehumanises the model and 2) makes anyone who doesn’t look like them feel anxious about their self-image.

Except for the fact that we live in a country where our unholy fear of our own bodies has created a pretty sick sexual culture. So does that mean that an ad that showcases boobies in such an off-hand, casual, un-pornographic way is a good thing?

I’m confused. Does anyone else have thoughts?